Volume
2, Number 1, Oct 2001

Student
Protests, Negotiation,
and Constructive Confrontation

by
Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess
Co-Directors
University of Colorado Conflict Research Consortium
August 28, 2000

Going
back at least as far as the turbulent 60's and 70's, universities
have served as a focal point for confrontations over many
of the key moral questions confronting society--racial
inequity, gender discrimination, fair treatment of people
with different sexual orientations, environmental protection,
and workers rights.

When
constructively handled, the policy changes that have emerged
from these conflicts have helped transform universities
into institutions which are among societys most
progressive (in the best sense of the word). Unfortunately,
there have also been cases in which such conflicts have
been quite destructive. Miscommunication and misunderstandings
portray inaccurate (usually negative) images of the positions
and actions of others. Especially destructive are confrontations
which have escalated to the point of property damage,
physical injury, or even death. Destructive escalation
processes can also lead to intense interpersonal animosities
which replace any thoughtful examination of the difficult
moral issues being addressed. Under such circumstances,
opportunities for mutually beneficial compromise and institutional
learning are usually lost.

For
the past 10 years, the University of Colorado Conflict
Research Consortium has been developing more constructive
ways of handling the intractable conflicts that so often
surround debates over questions of social justice and
morality. Based upon this work, this essay suggests a
series of strategies that can be used by university administrators
and students seeking more constructive ways of handling
student protests. (These ideas are also applicable to
similar conflicts involving university faculty, staff,
and the larger community.) More specifically, this essay
offers guidelines for determining when negotiation is
and is not appropriate. It also suggests some things to
consider before negotiations begin and gives a few guidelines
about how such negotiations might best proceed. (These
topics actually take a book to cover in detail, so what
we have here are just some key points and references,
at the end, for more information.) In cases where negotiation
is inappropriate, we also offer suggestions for limiting
the destructiveness which all too often accompanies the
resulting confrontation.

Advice
is offered from an impartial perspective which seeks to
equally serve the interest of university administrators
and protest groups. While some of the suggestions are
more applicable to students and others apply more to administrators,
by presenting both in the same paper we hope that we can
encourage all the people involved in such disputes to
confront them in a more constructive way, and to understand
how each side can encourage the other to be more constructive
in their response to the issue in dispute.

Conflict and Dispute

One
key toward what we call more "constructive confrontation"
is an understanding of the distinction between long-term
underlying conflicts and shorter term dispute episodes.
Universities have been and will continue to be a focal point
for a broad range of social groups seeking redress for past
injustices. One of the universitys most important
pedagogical functions is to provide a forum in which its
students and the larger community can examine these issues.
This suggests that constructive social justice confrontations
should be encouraged, rather than suppressed. It also suggests
that hopes of resolving the underlying conflict in ways
which eliminate future confrontations are unrealistic.

Within
the context of these long-term underlying conflicts, there
are numerous dispute episodes, such as controversies over
the promotion or retention of minority faculty members;
the disposal of university investments in companies engaged
in unacceptable environmental or social practices; the addition
of new, social justice-related curricula; animal research
policies; and controversies over the university's association
with businesses that utilize "sweatshop" labor
and/or support for organizations which oppose "sweatshop"
labor policies.

In
some cases these disputes can be resolved using alternative
dispute resolution processes (most often negotiation or
mediation). In other cases, the parties will not negotiate
and the disputes are resolved by more traditional legal,
political, or administrative decisions. In any case, the
cumulative effect of all of these dispute resolution processes
is a continual setting and resetting of the moral policies
under which the university operates. In short, university
administrators and protest groups need to take a long view
of social justice confrontations and seek to establish institutions
and traditions which foster more constructive confrontations
over the long term.

Students
also need to realize that these issues are not simple, nor
are they easily solved. Most of these conflicts involve
deep-rooted moral questions that people feel very strongly
about. Policies are not going to be changed overnight, nor
perhaps, in a semester or a year. These are issues that
will be considered, changed, reconsidered, and changed again.
Everyone involved needs to know that progress, likely, will
be slow. But individual disputes and their resolution are
stepping stones to the long run goal of significant social
change. So pursuit of these issues, even on a small scale,
can eventually have significant social policy implications
that go far beyond the local campus and community.

Determining
When a Dispute Is "Ripe" for Negotiation

As
used here, the term negotiation refers to the
parties voluntary efforts to find a mutually-acceptable
compromise which settles the immediate dispute. It seldom
resolves the underlying long-term conflict, but it sets
a policy that at least resolves the immediate problem and
may set the direction for future decision making as well.
Negotiation can be pursued by parties themselves, or it
can be facilitated by a mediator who helps the parties overcome
the barriers to agreement.

Regardless
of whether or not a conflict is negotiated or mediated,
before beginning it is useful for all sides to assess the
conflict's readiness or "ripeness" for negotiation.
In personalized and highly escalated conflicts, people may
become so angry and distrustful that they will not negotiate
in good faith, or they may refuse to negotiate at all. Students
may make the assumption that the university administration
"will not listen to them," or "doesn't care,"
and therefore negotiations are a waste of time.

Similarly, administrators may assume that the students have
made their demands (which the administrators may or may
not view as reasonable) and further assume that the students
are not willing to consider alternative approaches. Sometimes
this is true: the protesting group may believe so strongly
in a moral issue that they are unwilling to compromise their
basic beliefs. As a result, they may prefer a principled
defeat to what they see as a "hollow compromise."
In this case, they will likely refuse to negotiate or will
reject any proposed agreement, preferring to continue the
confrontation and paint the administration as the "bad
guys." While the administration can try to exhibit
an open mind and a willingness to discuss the issues, they
should not feel they have to bend to unreasonable demands
to avoid confrontation. They should just maintain a willingness
to talk, if and when the students are ready.

In
other cases, the students' or the administration's refusal
to negotiate may stem from a rational assessment of costs
and benefits. If either party believes that they have an
alternative to a negotiated agreement which is more desirable
than what they expect to gain from negotiation, they are
likely to take their alternative and reject any negotiated
settlement. (Conflict scholars frequently refer to this
alternative as a "BATNA," which stands for "best
alternative to the negotiated agreement.") For example,
a faculty member who believes that he or she can win an
employment discrimination case in court is unlikely to agree
to a less desirable negotiated outcome. Similarly, students
who feel that they can sue the university and get what they
want, or that they can stage further, more disruptive demonstrations
and get their demands met without fear of serious consequences,
are likely to try to do so. If they suspect that the administration
still won't budge, and is likely to expel them from school,
they may be more interested in negotiation. Likewise, university
officials with strong backing from regents and political
leaders may also be less likely to bend to student demands,
knowing that they will get backed up in their decision to
hold firm.

Thus,
as a general guideline, if the parties on all sides do not
indicate (by word and deed) a willingness to sit down and
really listen to the interests and concerns of the other
side, and to work together in a positive way to reach a
joint solution to the problem, then negotiations most likely
will not work at that time.

That
does not mean that negotiation won't work laterit
just means the time is not ripe now. Generally, a conflict
is not ripe for negotiation until both sides know how much
power they have relative to the other side, and thus, what
their BATNAs are. Once they understand what they are likely
to be able to get through power-based alternatives, then
they will know whether negotiation will make sense or not.

Thus
both administrators and students should carefully consider
their alternatives to negotiationtheir BATNAs--before
they decide whether or not to negotiate. If either side
thinks the other is making an unrealistic assessment of
their BATNAsif the administration, for example, thinks
that the students expect to get more through protests than
they can possibly get, sometimes an administrator can talk
with one of the leaders and explain how the administration's
hands are tied, for example, and how further demonstrations
will not yield the results the students want. Through clarifying
their own options to the students, the administration may
thus encourage the students to reassess their own BATNAs
and then, perhaps, open negotiations when they would not
negotiate before.

It
is also important to distinguish between a willingness to
participate in negotiations and a willingness to actually
accept the negotiated settlement. People are often willing
to give negotiation a try on the chance that it may ultimately
offer them a good deal. Still, they are unlikely to accept
the final compromise unless the negotiated agreement is
better than their BATNA. (We actually prefer the term "EATNA"the
"expected" alternative to the negotiated agreement.
A party may expect something far better than what they will
actually get, but those expectations are what matters, not
their actual BATNA.) While parties will know their EATNA,
they will not know if they can beat it through negotiations
until they try. So it is often worth attempting negotiation,
if parties will do so in good faith, and see if it is possible
to match or beat each side's EATNA. If it is, the dispute
will probably be resolved more quickly and with less cost
than if the parties continued their confrontation.